But I am always surprised at how small an issue this is. In the 2008 and political debates in canada, the leftist NDP and Cons wanted the Green Party excluded from the debate (the four parties with significant representation in the commons are always there: Cons, Libs, NDP, Bloc) and threatened to boycott. They did have a minor case: that there are already four parties there and the Greens had no representation in the commons. In any case, the general outcry over this exclusion made such waves that Greens were included. No seats produced, but in 2011 they won their first seat (despite being excluded from the debates that year). the one time I saw her, the Green leader was the most impressive debater by a long shot.

The ultimate decision on who to invite comes from the CBC, the dreaded STATE MEDIA, who waffle between including and excluding the Greens (usually based on the fact that they didn't have enough support). But you have a completely different game in Canada; there is no question the debate will include at least 4 people.

Good reasons to hear scientists debate science. I'm still waiting for a reason to hear politicians debate science.

indeed. but both candidates should know basic science as their decisions affect a lot of science.

Not really. The legislators have much more impact. The president just executes, and they have a vast staff of experts to advise them. As to policy and recommending budgetary reallocations, he is steering a battleship; he is limited in reality to making tiny changes, a little bit at a time, all of which are subject to approval of the legislators, and all of which depend on what amounts to a consensus approval of the echelons of bureaucrats below him who can just passive-aggressively wait him out.

When it comes to big changes, Presidents can only jump on existing bandwagons already in motion, perhaps tilting the balance, and then try to take credit.

As an example, in the revisionist history we all learn, a big light bulb went on over J.F.K.'s head, and he said, "Let's go to the Moon!" It didn't happen like that. There was a groundswell of interest in a manned Moon mission starting in the 1950s, long before his involvement, then with Sputnik, fear of technological inferiority to the Communists provided the motivation for legislators to fund it. It wasn't his idea any more than supporting "Freedom Fighters" in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan was Reagan's.

Not really. The legislators have much more impact. The president just executes, and they have a vast staff of experts to advise them. As to policy and recommending budgetary reallocations, he is steering a battleship; he is limited in reality to making tiny changes, a little bit at a time, all of which are subject to approval of the legislators, and all of which depend on what amounts to a consensus approval of the echelons of bureaucrats below him who can just passive-aggressively wait him out.

When it comes to big changes, Presidents can only jump on existing bandwagons already in motion, perhaps tilting the balance, and then try to take credit.

As an example, in the revisionist history we all learn, a big light bulb went on over J.F.K.'s head, and he said, "Let's go to the Moon!" It didn't happen like that. There was a groundswell of interest in a manned Moon mission starting in the 1950s, long before his involvement, then with Sputnik, fear of technological inferiority to the Communists provided the motivation for legislators to fund it. It wasn't his idea any more than supporting "Freedom Fighters" in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan was Reagan's.

it indicates where they and their party stands. of course, their advisers are picked by them.

Not really. The legislators have much more impact. The president just executes, and they have a vast staff of experts to advise them. As to policy and recommending budgetary reallocations, he is steering a battleship; he is limited in reality to making tiny changes, a little bit at a time, all of which are subject to approval of the legislators, and all of which depend on what amounts to a consensus approval of the echelons of bureaucrats below him who can just passive-aggressively wait him out.

When it comes to big changes, Presidents can only jump on existing bandwagons already in motion, perhaps tilting the balance, and then try to take credit.

As an example, in the revisionist history we all learn, a big light bulb went on over J.F.K.'s head, and he said, "Let's go to the Moon!" It didn't happen like that. There was a groundswell of interest in a manned Moon mission starting in the 1950s, long before his involvement, then with Sputnik, fear of technological inferiority to the Communists provided the motivation for legislators to fund it. It wasn't his idea any more than supporting "Freedom Fighters" in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan was Reagan's.

it indicates where they and their party stands. of course, their advisers are picked by them.

A party's "political platform" and what they will actually do or change are two entirely different things, particularly when it comes to domestic issues, in which they actually have far less influence (other than their veto).

Obama talked a lot of shit about climate change and how horrible it was that the stupid, ignorant Republican deniers hadn't done anything about it, and that was a major issue last election. Nevertheless, once he got in office, he didn't do squat, even with an overwhelming majority in Congress his first two years. It just wasn't actually a priority for him, despite what he said (either that or he sold out).

Even with that legislative majority, and a popular majority view that the standing constraints on stem cell research were a bit too restrictive, he only managed to make a tiny change (after his big show of opening the flood gates, he signed the Dickey-Wicker amendment the next day, which put most of the same restrictions back in place, unbeknownst to his supporters because the mainstream media didn't cover it).

He did go forward with his health care change crusade, with less than 50% support, and look what happened. Speaking of abortions.

What I would like is for these debates is:

1. A totally objective "Bullshit Buzzer", and every time one of the candidates says something substantially untrue, the Bullshit Buzzer gets buzzed, and they have to correct themselves.

2. The questions should not be made up, chosen, or asked, by TV newscasters, most of whom have serious bias, but by objective, non-media parties agreed to both candidates.

3. None of the bullshit analysis after the debate, where the biased news programs all try to create the illusion that their favorite candidate "won the debate", regardless of the actual outcome.

A party's "political platform" and what they will actually do or change are two entirely different things, particularly when it comes to domestic issues, in which they actually have far less influence (other than their veto).

obviously not by design. they are supposed to do that.

Quote:

1. A totally objective "Bullshit Buzzer", and every time one of the candidates says something substantially untrue, the Bullshit Buzzer gets buzzed, and they have to correct themselves.

2. The questions should not be made up, chosen, or asked, by TV newscasters, most of whom have serious bias, but by objective, non-media parties agreed to both candidates.

3. None of the bullshit analysis after the debate, where the biased news programs all try to create the illusion that their favorite candidate "won the debate", regardless of the actual outcome.

1) we would all like that, but I think it would be hard to implement.
2) my impression is that the parties have a shit load of control already. truth to power people asking would be nice.
3) restricting free speech. go home commie!

Two blowhards citing bullshit pulled from the air that means nothing... worst presidential debate ever. Do the think that we are really this fucking stupid, that they can't cite any real data or stats, and just stick to pure rhetoric?

And if you ask an Obama supporter, he'll talk about how bad Romney is getting his ass kicked. This is your bias speaking. All I know is that both of them are just re-stating the same tired rhetoric over and over without going into any specific detail, making the whole thing absolutely pointless.

What I see happening here is that, in this forum, Obama can't lie without getting called out on it. The three or four times he has tried it, he has been busted. He's definitely on the defensive, and he's losing practically all the fact-based arguments.

Facts may not be important to the liberal pundits who will spin the outcome, but anybody watching who has an ounce of brains can see what's happening.

I caught part of Romney's last routine. Was he hopping up and down like that throughout? Serious WTF right there.

ratmonkey wrote:

both of them are just re-stating the same tired rhetoric over and over without going into any specific detail, making the whole thing absolutely pointless.

This must be the first debate you've seen, or the first one you've paid attention to. What I hate more is when they discuss it afterward._________________lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

Mostly dull... Obama brought out his usual strawmen and pitifully attacked them. When Obama tried to bring up BIG OIL and their EVIL TAX BREAK, Romney nailed him by showing how Obama dumped 50 years worth of the tax credits on Solyndra et al and the result was pure failure.

"I have a friend who says, you don't pick winners and losers, you just pick losers."_________________Always do the opposite of what SJWs say.

Obama played the race card. Hillary played the woman card. America played the Trump card.